or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Golf Talk › Bogey golfer only thread (handicap index from 16 - 22) - what are you going through, working on, sob stories, ....
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bogey golfer only thread (handicap index from 16 - 22) - what are you going through, working on,... - Page 27

post #469 of 1037
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkim291968 View Post

 

FYI, see below chart.    My ranges are in bold.   I would love to know what others' are (cut and paste and bold your stat). 

 

 

  AVERAGE SCORE Relationship
CATEGORY 71 75 79 81 85 89 91 95 99  
GIR
12
10 8 7 5 3 2 0 0
Strong
% Fairways 81 71 61 56 46 36 31 21 11 Weak
Iron Accuracy 80 68 53 47 33 20 13 0 0 Good
Putts per Round 29.0 30.3 31.7 32.3 33.7 35.0 35.7 37.0 38.3
Weak
Pitch/Chip/Sand 5.1 7.4 9.8 10.9 13.3 15.6 16.8 19.2 21.5 Strong
Birdies 3.2 2.4 1.8 1.5 0.8 0.1 0 0
0
Strong
Pars 11.8 10.3 8.8 8.1 6.6 5.1 4.3 2.8 1.3
Strong

 

I'm sure my % Fairways is sitting in the 81 slot because I don't actually use driver.  That 56% will be shorter than most.  Not sure what Iron Accuracy or Pitch/Chip was.

post #470 of 1037
Quote:
Originally Posted by M2R View Post
 

 

Are there modest courses that might stay open weather permitting like Broadview or Indian Hills, both off 16 toward Columbus (don't know the courses toward Newark)? Or is it just not worth the hassle? I think winter golf has it's own set of charms and can be quite fun at times.

Yes and no...I guess weather permitting, i will try to call some of the local courses and see if they are open. I golfed two weeks ago and most were open, since then the Temp has been in the 20-30 range so most are closed. Some that have good sized pro shops, bar and grills(weekend)  might stay open, and member clubs usually do. But the smaller clubs do not.

post #471 of 1037
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meltdwhiskey View Post
 
  AVERAGE SCORE Relationship
CATEGORY 71 75 79 81 85 89 91 95 99  
GIR
12
10 8 7 5 3 2 0 0
Strong
% Fairways 81 71 61 56 46 36 31 21 11 Weak
Iron Accuracy 80 68 53 47 33 20 13 0 0 Good
Putts per Round 29.0 30.3 31.7 32.3 33.7 35.0 35.7 37.0 38.3
Weak
Pitch/Chip/Sand 5.1 7.4 9.8 10.9 13.3 15.6 16.8 19.2 21.5 Strong
Birdies 3.2 2.4 1.8 1.5 0.8 0.1 0 0
0
Strong
Pars 11.8 10.3 8.8 8.1 6.6 5.1 4.3 2.8 1.3
Strong

 

I'm sure my % Fairways is sitting in the 81 slot because I don't actually use driver.  That 56% will be shorter than most.  Not sure what Iron Accuracy or Pitch/Chip was.

 

Yours and my charts are fairly similar (that may explain why I tend to agree with your posts more).    I believe Chip/Pitch/Sand numbers are total chip/pitch/sand shots per round.   It's a duplicate indicator to total GIR number.   I don't know how Iron accuracy is measured. 

post #472 of 1037

I think Meltdwhiskey is right. You need only have watched the last hole/playoff of the Northwestern Mutual. Out of 4 second shots, only one of Tiger and Johnson's shots hit the green, and it was 30 feet from the hole. Tiger's first second shot was tough, so throw that one out. One out of three shots were onto the green with a fairly easy distance and accessible pin location from the fairway with good lies.

post #473 of 1037
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkim291968 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meltdwhiskey View Post
 
  AVERAGE SCORE Relationship
CATEGORY 71 75 79 81 85 89 91 95 99  
GIR
12
10 8 7 5 3 2 0 0
Strong
% Fairways 81 71 61 56 46 36 31 21 11 Weak
Iron Accuracy 80 68 53 47 33 20 13 0 0 Good
Putts per Round 29.0 30.3 31.7 32.3 33.7 35.0 35.7 37.0 38.3
Weak
Pitch/Chip/Sand 5.1 7.4 9.8 10.9 13.3 15.6 16.8 19.2 21.5 Strong
Birdies 3.2 2.4 1.8 1.5 0.8 0.1 0 0
0
Strong
Pars 11.8 10.3 8.8 8.1 6.6 5.1 4.3 2.8 1.3
Strong

 

I'm sure my % Fairways is sitting in the 81 slot because I don't actually use driver.  That 56% will be shorter than most.  Not sure what Iron Accuracy or Pitch/Chip was.

 

Yours and my charts are fairly similar (that may explain why I tend to agree with your posts more).    I believe Chip/Pitch/Sand numbers are total chip/pitch/sand shots per round.   It's a duplicate indicator to total GIR number.   I don't know how Iron accuracy is measured. 

 

This is where I ask how you guys keep these statistics. The main ones I am wondering about are "iron accuracy" and "pitch/chip/sand"

post #474 of 1037
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lihu View Post

 

This is where I ask how you guys keep these statistics. The main ones I am wondering about are "iron accuracy" and "pitch/chip/sand"

 

I don't keep those either.   I think pitch/chip/sand is similar to GIR.  The more GIRs you have, less pitch/chip/sand you will have.   Iron accuracy - the "stat" article does not explain how this is measured.  

 

All the other stats, I record them on my scorecard for every round.  

post #475 of 1037
 
AVERAGE SCORE
CATEGORY
71
75
79
81
85
89
91
95
99
GIR
12
10
8
7
5
3
2
0
0
% Fairways
81
71
61
56
46
36
31
21
11
Iron Accuracy
80
68
53
47
33
20
13
0
0
Putts per Round
29.0
30.3
31.7
32.3
33.7
35.0
35.7
37.0
38.3
Pitch/Chip/Sand
5.1
7.4
9.8
10.9
13.3
15.6
16.8
19.2
21.5
Birdies
3.2
2.4
1.8
1.5
0.8
0.1
0
0
0
Pars
11.8
10.3
8.8
8.1
6.6
5.1
4.3
2.8
1.3

 

                                                                  

I had to guess as to what was meant by "range", so I made the presumption that it meant the averages fell somewhere between those sets of numbers (i.e.:  I actually average just a touch over 6 GIR/round but that falls between the 7 & 5).  If that is what you meant, then here is mine for all of 2013.   Since there was nothing higher than the 38.3 putting strokes, I just marked it but my actual average for the year is 39.6.

 

What isn't recorded here are the # of double or triple bogey holes per round...    Those are what is killing me right now..   This past Wednesday, I had 9 pars and 9 doubles.  Didn't have a single bogey on the entire card.  Ended up shooting a 90.  As you can probably guess, putting is what did me in..


Edited by teamroper60 - 12/9/13 at 6:41pm
post #476 of 1037
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meltdwhiskey View Post
 

 

I look at them because they help paint a picture and they are all we have.  I understand what you are saying and there are definitely places that stats can get misleading.  But this one would be as apples to apples as almost any stat.

You can't compare your stats with tour golfers' because you don't play their courses, from their yardages, with their setups. You'd hit a lot less GIR on their setup and they'd hit a lot more on yours. It's not apples to apples. It'd be like comparing your adult baseball league average to a MLB player's.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Meltdwhiskey View Post
 

 

 If it is Snedeker or if it's me, we both have a 150 yard shot and we both want to be on the green.  If they never hunted a pin, I'm sure they'd get some more.  But every time they hit it, they certainly want to be on the green.

I think this is where you get it wrong. You want to be on the green. Snedeker wants to be on the pin. He doesn't want to be 45' from the hole, on the green. This is because he's most likely to two putt the hole from there and par it. But he's also likely to get up a down from the rough if he misses the green for par, so he takes the chance to get it close for birdie, even if it means missing the green.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Meltdwhiskey View Post
 

I'd love to see something to support that.

Just out of this month's Golf Digest: 32 Consecutive greens in regulation hit by Charlie Wi during the Waste Management Phoenix Open in February. I believe there's a full round of GIR's on day two, but don't quote me on that. Point is, it can be done. BTW, he didn't win, so I don't think you should put this much stock on hitting greens above all else on the tour level.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meltdwhiskey View Post
 

I do think that Billchao's assertion that if they weren't pin hunting that they would green it 100% of the time regardless of the iron used is invalid.

I never said that, please don't put words in my mouth.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Meltdwhiskey View Post
 

The PGA tracks and touts the GIR stat.  Most of the best players are in the top half of it and most of the worst are in the bottom half of it.  It helps to hit the green and they know it.  If proximity was the only important number and GIR didn't matter, I doubt they'd talk so much about it.

OT, but MLB loves batting average and RBIs, but WAR is a much better indicator of a player's value. Correlation is not causation, and maybe they just haven't found a better way to quantify a golfer's skill yet.

post #477 of 1037
Quote:
Originally Posted by billchao View Post
 

You can't compare your stats with tour golfers' because you don't play their courses, from their yardages, with their setups. You'd hit a lot less GIR on their setup and they'd hit a lot more on yours. It's not apples to apples. It'd be like comparing your adult baseball league average to a MLB player's.

 

I think this is where you get it wrong. You want to be on the green. Snedeker wants to be on the pin. He doesn't want to be 45' from the hole, on the green. This is because he's most likely to two putt the hole from there and par it. But he's also likely to get up a down from the rough if he misses the green for par, so he takes the chance to get it close for birdie, even if it means missing the green.

 

Just out of this month's Golf Digest: 32 Consecutive greens in regulation hit by Charlie Wi during the Waste Management Phoenix Open in February. I believe there's a full round of GIR's on day two, but don't quote me on that. Point is, it can be done. BTW, he didn't win, so I don't think you should put this much stock on hitting greens above all else on the tour level.


I agree with this^^^^^   and it was what I was getting at.   We aim for the center and hope to get on the green.   A pro picks a spot where he can hit to but still be close to the pin for a birdie.   Since the pin is obviously on the green, he wants to be GIR but since the only stat he really cares about is his score, GIR is meaningless to him on any given hole.   He'll go for proximity to the hole everytime over just padding his GIR stats.

post #478 of 1037
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by teamroper60 View Post
 
 
AVERAGE SCORE
CATEGORY
71
75
79
81
85
89
91
95
99
GIR
12
10
8
7
5
3
2
0
0
% Fairways
81
71
61
56
46
36
31
21
11
Iron Accuracy
80
68
53
47
33
20
13
0
0
Putts per Round
29.0
30.3
31.7
32.3
33.7
35.0
35.7
37.0
38.3
Pitch/Chip/Sand
5.1
7.4
9.8
10.9
13.3
15.6
16.8
19.2
21.5
Birdies
3.2
2.4
1.8
1.5
0.8
0.1
0
0
0
Pars
11.8
10.3
8.8
8.1
6.6
5.1
4.3
2.8
1.3

 

                                                                  

I had to guess as to what was meant by "range", so I made the presumption that it meant the averages fell somewhere between those sets of numbers (i.e.:  I actually average just a touch over 6 GIR/round but that falls between the 7 & 5).  If that is what you meant, then here is mine for all of 2013.   Since there was nothing higher than the 38.3 putting strokes, I just marked it but my actual average for the year is 39.6.

 

What isn't recorded here are the # of double or triple bogey holes per round...    Those are what is killing me right now..   This past Wednesday, I had 9 pars and 9 doubles.  Didn't have a single bogey on the entire card.  Ended up shooting a 90.  As you can probably guess, putting is what did me in..

Your "range" interpretation is correct. 

 

Your higher putting average is somewhat explained by your higher GIR stat for bogey golfer.    Are you playing relatively easy course?   Other than putting, your overall stat seems to be better than that of a typical bogey golfer.   

 

I can relate to # of doubles & triples.  I have the same issue now but my problem is with my ball striking which ends up with OBs.  OBs are killing my score.   Putting is keeping me as a bogey golfer despite my OBs.

post #479 of 1037
Quote:
Originally Posted by billchao View Post

You can't compare your stats with tour golfers' because you don't play their courses, from their yardages, with their setups. You'd hit a lot less GIR on their setup and they'd hit a lot more on yours. It's not apples to apples. It'd be like comparing your adult baseball league average to a MLB player's.

 

I think this is where you get it wrong. You want to be on the green. Snedeker wants to be on the pin. He doesn't want to be 45' from the hole, on the green. This is because he's most likely to two putt the hole from there and par it. But he's also likely to get up a down from the rough if he misses the green for par, so he takes the chance to get it close for birdie, even if it means missing the green.

 

Just out of this month's Golf Digest: 32 Consecutive greens in regulation hit by Charlie Wi during the Waste Management Phoenix Open in February. I believe there's a full round of GIR's on day two, but don't quote me on that. Point is, it can be done. BTW, he didn't win, so I don't think you should put this much stock on hitting greens above all else on the tour level.

 

You can't compare your stats with tour golfers' because you don't play their courses, from their yardages, with their setups. You'd hit a lot less GIR on their setup and they'd hit a lot more on yours. It's not apples to apples. It'd be like comparing your adult baseball league average to a MLB player's.

 

I do play from their yardages, because in this scenario I'm talking about playing from a certain yardage.  Snedeker and I are both at 150.  His 150 is not longer or shorter than my 150.  We're going to shoot at the green and/or pin from there.  He's going to hit shots of a certain quality and get on the green a certain percentage - and so am I.  Only his is going to be WAY better than mine.  That is the point I'm making.  The baseball thing is not really parallel because it is more reactive to a different level of pitching. A better comparison might be a field goal kick or free throws.

 

I think this is where you get it wrong. You want to be on the green. Snedeker wants to be on the pin. He doesn't want to be 45' from the hole, on the green. This is because he's most likely to two putt the hole from there and par it. But he's also likely to get up a down from the rough if he misses the green for par, so he takes the chance to get it close for birdie, even if it means missing the green.

 

Sure Snedeker wants to be on the pin - but that doesn't exclude him from also playing to be somewhere on the green.  That's just silly.  I doubt he goes directly for the pin no matter where it is 100% of the time.  He guards against missing greens,  short siding, tries to stay below the hole, etc.  He doesn't want to be 45' from the pin, but he gets down in 2 more often from there than he does from the rough and 35 feet from the pin.  And he knows this.  They want to be putting - not chipping.  Also - your statement implies all amateurs go for the center of the green on every shot.  They don't.  That is silly.  I'd almost bet pros are better at playing for the fat part than amateurs.  I can't remember the last time I heard a hacker say he was just going for the middle of the green.  If hackers and Snedeker are going for the pin the same amount of the time, then the stats would be parallel anyway. 

 

Just out of this month's Golf Digest: 32 Consecutive greens in regulation hit by Charlie Wi during the Waste Management Phoenix Open in February. I believe there's a full round of GIR's on day two, but don't quote me on that. Point is, it can be done. BTW, he didn't win, so I don't think you should put this much stock on hitting greens above all else on the tour level.

 

I don't see how this is proof that 100% of PGA golfers would go 100% GIR for their career with all of their irons if they aimed for the center.  Does it even say that he aimed for the center every time? This is one anecdote about a random golfer.  He shot a 63 in round 2 by the way.  You're making my case for me.

 

I also never said GIR was above all else on the tour level.  I just said they talk about it a lot and imply its importance and the guys that are really good seem to have a lot of them.  As I've also alluded to, it appears at first glance that Iacas and company's new book might be partially based on just these kind of stats.  I don't think they are totally invalid.

 

I think this is where you get it wrong.

 

I think you get it wrong with your 100% idea. I understand that the truth might lie somewhere between the actual numbers and 100%.  But I don't think it's hovering around 99% or something.  I think it's closer to what they are getting.  I think you are underestimating how much they want to be on the green and how often they play something 'smart' and not go for broke to hit the pin.  It might also be worth noting that the pin isn't always within a few feet of the fringe.  Going for the pin and going for the green aren't always that far apart.

 

Like with Lihu, I don't think I can sway you any, so I'm probably going to stop with this line of thought with you here.  I think your 100% theory is far fetched, but you seem to be committed to it.  We just disagree.  Good enough.

post #480 of 1037
Quote:
Originally Posted by teamroper60 View Post


I agree with this^^^^^   and it was what I was getting at.   We aim for the center and hope to get on the green.   A pro picks a spot where he can hit to but still be close to the pin for a birdie.   Since the pin is obviously on the green, he wants to be GIR but since the only stat he really cares about is his score, GIR is meaningless to him on any given hole.   He'll go for proximity to the hole everytime over just padding his GIR stats.

Nobody said anything about sacrificing scores to pad stats.  Being on the green is not meaningless to him - that is ridiculous.  He wants to be on the green because being on the green means birdie opportunity with par as the consolation prize  in most cases.  But if you miss the green, you start hoping you can save par and now bogie is your consolation prize.  And once again, if you hit toward the pin - but miss the green, you are what's known as short sided.  This is typically thought of as something to avoid.  You say, "he'll go for proximity to the hole every time..."  But he won't.  He balances getting good proximity with things like bunkers, short siding, missing the green, water hazards, his desire to putt, his fear of bogeys, etc.  You've probably heard the old saying - There are two things that don’t last very long: dogs chasing cars and pros putting for pars.

 

Picture this, you're watching golf, you heard the thump of the ball on the green, and saw it land softly - not right by the that tucked pin - but over toward the fat part.  McCord interjects, "Good shot - a nice safe play."  This really happens.  Or maybe there is a bunker guarding near the front left - pin to the right.  Approach shot goes in the bunker.  Why?  He simply didn't hit it where he wanted to.  He wasn't 100%.  He missed the proximity to the pin, he missed the green, he missed everything and hit it in the bunker.

 

Like with the other guys, you don't think the stat is valid. I think it is pretty good.  But I'm never going to get you off the 100% thought process.  It is pointless for us to argue about it any more without some more data of some kind.  We'll just have to disagree about it.

post #481 of 1037

Originally Posted by billchao View Post

Quote:

Originally Posted by teamroper60 View Post
I think you are looking too much at PGA tour stats and trying too hard to correlate them to your own game.   I suspect that if a PGA tour player was to spend the season just aiming for the center of the green instead of trying to hit it close, they would probably be hitting the greens something north of 80% regardless of the iron.
I'll take this one step further and say that if their goal was simply make fairways and GIR, they'd probably be able to make 100%.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by billchao View Post

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meltdwhiskey View Post

I do think that Billchao's assertion that if they weren't pin hunting that they would green it 100% of the time regardless of the iron used is invalid.

I never said that, please don't put words in my mouth.

 

Sorry, I didn't see the lowest posts on the other device I was using. Not sure what happened. 

 

But I didn't want you to think I made up something about what you wrote. I also wanted to make sure I didn't make a mistake, so I went back and grabbed the posts.  I didn't know how to reverse the order on these, so they are chronological. But above you can see from post 439 that you actually did write that they would get 100%GIR.

post #482 of 1037
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meltdwhiskey View Post

 

I do play from their yardages, because in this scenario I'm talking about playing from a certain yardage.  Snedeker and I are both at 150.  His 150 is not longer or shorter than my 150.  We're going to shoot at the green and/or pin from there.  He's going to hit shots of a certain quality and get on the green a certain percentage - and so am I.  Only his is going to be WAY better than mine.  That is the point I'm making.  The baseball thing is not really parallel because it is more reactive to a different level of pitching. A better comparison might be a field goal kick or free throws.

 

You are correct that you are both playing from 150 but you are not playing the same shot.   Based on an earlier post of yours, 150 appears to be something like an easy 6.   For most on tour, that distance is gonna be a wedge.  So of course his chances of GIR are gonna be better than yours, just as your chances of hitting GIR at your wedge distance is better than your chances with your 6.   The bottom line is, you are playing golf and Sneds is playing golf but because of course setups, skill level, etc.. the two of you are most definitely NOT playing the same game.  To go with a different sport analogy, it would be like having a wide open lane to the basket in basketball.   For many people, that's a layup, for a pro, it's a slam dunk.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Meltdwhiskey View Post
 

Nobody said anything about sacrificing scores to pad stats.  Being on the green is not meaningless to him - that is ridiculous.  He wants to be on the green because being on the green means birdie opportunity with par as the consolation prize  in most cases.  But if you miss the green, you start hoping you can save par and now bogie is your consolation prize.  And once again, if you hit toward the pin - but miss the green, you are what's known as short sided.  This is typically thought of as something to avoid.  You say, "he'll go for proximity to the hole every time..."  But he won't.  He balances getting good proximity with things like bunkers, short siding, missing the green, water hazards, his desire to putt, his fear of bogeys, etc.  You've probably heard the old saying - There are two things that don’t last very long: dogs chasing cars and pros putting for pars.

 

Picture this, you're watching golf, you heard the thump of the ball on the green, and saw it land softly - not right by the that tucked pin - but over toward the fat part.  McCord interjects, "Good shot - a nice safe play."  This really happens.  Or maybe there is a bunker guarding near the front left - pin to the right.  Approach shot goes in the bunker.  Why?  He simply didn't hit it where he wanted to.  He wasn't 100%.  He missed the proximity to the pin, he missed the green, he missed everything and hit it in the bunker.

 

Like with the other guys, you don't think the stat is valid. I think it is pretty good.  But I'm never going to get you off the 100% thought process.  It is pointless for us to argue about it any more without some more data of some kind.  We'll just have to disagree about it. 

Of course he wants to be on the green (and thus, GIR), the pin is on the green.  That is the most obvious statement anyone could possibly make.   And I did not imply that a pro is interested in padding his stats.   What I said was GIR is meaningless to him on any given shot at any given time.  What matters is what is his best chance to birdie the hole and if birdie is not a possiblity, then what shot gives him the best chance to secure par.   The only time he is intentionally going for the center of the green is if that is the BEST shot he has, not just because it's a safe shot that makes a two putt for par a certainty.  As was pointed out earlier, a pro would likely rather be 10 yds from the pin and off the green (short sided, since you like that term) where he can chip on and quite possibly hole it out, rather than 100' from the pin with virtually no chance to sink it from there and a decent chance at having to 3 putt.

 

Furthermore, I seriously doubt a pro views a greenside bunker with the same fear most of us do.   Maybe at the Open Championship but not on the average course here, where 6' vertical walls are a rarity.    

 

I'm not on the "100% thought process but I am certain you aren't going to agree with (apparently) several of us on this point.  So yeah, we will have to disagree on that one.


Edited by teamroper60 - 12/9/13 at 9:21pm
post #483 of 1037
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkim291968 View Post
Your higher putting average is somewhat explained by your higher GIR stat for bogey golfer.    Are you playing relatively easy course?   Other than putting, your overall stat seems to be better than that of a typical bogey golfer.

The course I play most of the time has a rating of 69.8 and a slope of 124 from the tees I play.  I don't know if that is easy, hard or what..   

post #484 of 1037
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meltdwhiskey View Post
 

 

I do play from their yardages, because in this scenario I'm talking about playing from a certain yardage.  Snedeker and I are both at 150.  His 150 is not longer or shorter than my 150.

That's fine, but Snedeker's GIR percentage is not based on your hypothetical scenario, it's based on his real tournament conditions. He hit 65.68% GIR in 79 rounds in 2013. He did it playing an average of what, 7,200 yard courses? You're playing 6,000 yard courses and comparing your GIR with his and saying it's apples to apples, I don't buy it. Evaluate your game and compare it to those comparable to you and you'll get much more useful data than comparing your stats to a pro's.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Meltdwhiskey View Post
 

 

The baseball thing is not really parallel because it is more reactive to a different level of pitching.

Yes, it is, because golf courses get harder at the higher levels, just like pitching does.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Meltdwhiskey View Post
 

I doubt he goes directly for the pin no matter where it is 100% of the time.

Never said this.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Meltdwhiskey View Post
 

He doesn't want to be 45' from the pin, but he gets down in 2 more often from there than he does from the rough and 35 feet from the pin.  And he knows this.  They want to be putting - not chipping.

First, if he's missing the green by 35', something probably went wrong.

 

Second, you're not reading what I wrote. The pro is looking to score low, which means birdies. If going for the pin means you're going to miss the green in a place where you're likely to par the hole anyway, the risk vs. reward play is to go for the pin.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Meltdwhiskey View Post
 

 

Also - your statement implies all amateurs go for the center of the green on every shot.

I don't see where you get that implication. Please read my responses how I write them, I spend a lot of time trying to articulate exactly what I mean to say.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Meltdwhiskey View Post
 

 

I don't see how this is proof that 100% of PGA golfers would go 100% GIR for their career with all of their irons if they aimed for the center.

I never said anything about a PGA golfer going for 100% GIR for their career. You doubted that a PGA golfer could hit 100% GIR, and I demonstrated that Charlie Wi did so during a tournament round.

 

For the record, I actually like GIR, which I've mentioned either on this thread or elsewhere.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Meltdwhiskey View Post
 

 

I also never said GIR was above all else on the tour level.  I just said they talk about it a lot and imply its importance and the guys that are really good seem to have a lot of them.

Sorry, poor word selection. What I meant to say is that, on tour, the object is to score low, not shoot for greens. The two are related more often than not. However, there are times when GIR does not lead to low scoring, for example, the large double greens of St. Andrews. Even the pros will three putt from 100', so there is a situation where they'd rather miss it closer to the pin and chip on.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Meltdwhiskey View Post
 

 

I think you get it wrong with your 100% idea. I understand that the truth might lie somewhere between the actual numbers and 100%.  But I don't think it's hovering around 99% or something.  I think it's closer to what they are getting.

I said they'd probably make 100%, but let's run with 100% since you've already done so.

 

The object of golf is to get the ball in the hole in as little strokes as possible. PGA Tour GIR statistics are a reflection of that, meaning sometimes players miss greens going for the pin. If the object of golf was to hit the green in regulation, tour players would change their strategy completely. There would be different GIR numbers reflecting that change in strategy.

 

And yes, I am saying that they're good enough to hit 100% GIR if and only if the object of golf was to hit GIR. Could everybody on tour do it? Probably not, but the top ballstrikers in the world certainly could, and everybody's GIR percentage would increase as a whole. You're seriously not giving them enough credit if you think they're missing greens because of a lack of skill.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Meltdwhiskey View Post
 

Like with Lihu, I don't think I can sway you any, so I'm probably going to stop with this line of thought with you here.  I think your 100% theory is far fetched, but you seem to be committed to it.  We just disagree.  Good enough.

Not a theory, just a general comment which you misread/misinterpreted and got more meaning out of than I ever intended to make.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Meltdwhiskey View Post
 

 

But I didn't want you to think I made up something about what you wrote. I also wanted to make sure I didn't make a mistake, so I went back and grabbed the posts.  I didn't know how to reverse the order on these, so they are chronological. But above you can see from post 439 that you actually did write that they would get 100%GIR.

I'm not sure how you read "probably" as "definitely," or something of the sort.

post #485 of 1037

What's a course that the pros play that they generally aim for the green more than they try for the pin? The US Open this past year, if I remember right, was on a course where it seemed that the players were mostly just trying for GIR because of how punishing it was to miss the green. Even though the course is obviously more difficult than most of us play, I think those sorts of stats correlate pretty well to the game that most of us try to play(or maybe should).

post #486 of 1037
Quote:
Originally Posted by randomzero View Post
 

What's a course that the pros play that they generally aim for the green more than they try for the pin? The US Open this past year, if I remember right, was on a course where it seemed that the players were mostly just trying for GIR because of how punishing it was to miss the green. Even though the course is obviously more difficult than most of us play, I think those sorts of stats correlate pretty well to the game that most of us try to play(or maybe should).


The course for a US Open is typically set up to be extremely penalizing.  They usually have narrow fairways, ridiculously long rough and greens that are greasy fast like ice rinks.   I don't think that compares in any way to the courses we are playing on or as bogey golfers, should be trying to play.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Golf Talk
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Golf Talk › Bogey golfer only thread (handicap index from 16 - 22) - what are you going through, working on, sob stories, ....